DOCSLIB.ORG

Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Relations Committee 15th Meeting, 15 December 2016 The Implications of the EU referendum for Scotland: EU nationals and their rights Written submission from by Charles Goerens MEP European Associate Citizenship What is the purpose / aim of your amendment? I tabled my amendment to the own-initiative draft report by Guy Verhofstadt entitled “Possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union”, which aims at looking at the possibilities to improve the functioning of the European Union by a change of the Treaties. I have to acknowledge that these proposals are set-down in a so-called “own- initiative” report, and thus carry no legal weight at this stage. However, with the Brexit negotiations coming to a term, and given that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, as one of the larger Member States, and as the largest non-euro-area member, affects the strength and the institutional balance of the Union, the European Union will have to revise its Treaties. This is where Mr. Verhofstadt’s report could serve as a basis for the revision. In fact, in his report, Mr. Verhofstadt raises the idea of a type of “associate status”, which could be proposed “to those states in the periphery that only want to participate on the sideline, i.e. in some specific Union policies”, underlining that “this status should be accompanied by obligations corresponding to the associated rights”. This new type of “associate status” could thus be one of the possible outcomes of the negotiations about the future relationship between the EU and the UK. My proposed amendment could hence go hand in hand with Mr. Verhofstadt’s proposal and could be seen as a solution satisfying all UK citizens who wish to maintain a close relationship with the EU, whether they live in or outside the UK territory. I am deeply convinced that we should not ignore the concern felt by many of those who continue to identify themselves with the European values and wish to be part of the European project even after their country has ceased to be a member of the European Union. In fact, the numerous reactions and the support that I got so far from UK citizens living in the UK and abroad, confirm that I was right to table this amendment. Up to now, more than 1200 emails, each one telling a very personal story about the person’s or families’ feeling after the referendum, reached my office. As a member of the European Parliament, I could not simply fail to comply with my political convictions and I felt it as my duty to become active when one of the greatest achievements of the European Union, namely the freedom of movement, is at stake. 1 Isn’t it unfair that there will/might be no reciprocity regarding the amendment for EU citizens in the UK? Of course, some might argue that the “associate EU citizenship” would grant UK citizens a privilege that EU citizens, who might have to quit their jobs in the UK, do not enjoy. Yet, we have considered this issue and therefore propose that the associate citizens pay an annual membership fee directly into the EU budget as an own resource of the Union, following the reciprocal principle of ‘no taxation without representation’. As far as the reproach of lack of reciprocity is concerned, let me underline this: As a member of the European Parliament, I am not in a position to tell the UK government what to do. Yet, the amendment, as I mentioned before, could serve as a basis for the negotiations about the future relationship between the EU and the UK. In that sense, it can be seen as a political incentive where both parties are asked to find a way for future collaboration, which is also in the best interest of their respective citizens. In the press release it says that “associate citizens should pay an annual membership fee directly into the EU budget”. What will be the amount for this? How would this work? I am rather reluctant to dive into precisions relating to this particular issue, which I consider a minor detail, compared to the benefits that both, the EU and the so-called “associate EU citizens” would get out of it. An appropriate amount is going to be defined as soon as the principle is going to be adopted and translated into primary law. What lead you to the withdrawal of the amendment? What is the future path of the Associate EU citizenship? I decided together with Guy Verhofstadt to withdraw my amendment on Associate EU Citizenship. We realised that this has become a very important issue that cannot await treaty change - as was my intention when I first tabled my amendment - since this might take years. In the evening of 7 December, the House of Commons decided by a majority of almost 400 to support Theresa May’s plan to trigger article 50 by the end of March 2017. Hence the prospect that Article 50 will be invoked has become very real indeed. The European Parliament will define its position on the Brexit agreement through a resolution during spring 2017. This seems to be the best opportunity to give Brexit negotiator Guy Verhofstadt the possibility to enforce the Associate EU Citizenship. I agree with Guy Verhofstadt that the abovementioned procedure makes it much more likely for the Associate EU Citizenship to succeed than through an amendment. I often hear arguments, as to the legal impossibility to implement the proposal. However, it is important to differentiate between the current state of EU legislation in terms of citizenship and the concept, which I proposed in my amendment 882. 2 Currently the Treaties do not allow to grant associate EU citizenship to UK citizens after their country has left the EU. In fact, European citizenship stems directly from the national citizenship of its Member States. However, they also specify that citizenship of the Union is additional to and does not replace national citizenship. Creating an individual citizenship to the Union would thus require treaty change, not in the least to specify its rights and duties, but it would not infringe upon national citizenship. General remarks My proposal was first of all a political impulse to push the boundaries, on different levels. Many colleagues - amongst others colleagues from the UK - have expressed their explicit support of my amendment. Thus I hope that the same is going to be true when it comes to incorporating the proposal into the European Parliament’s resolution. When it comes to the negotiations on the future relationship between the EU and the UK, my idea, presumably in a different wording, could indeed serve as a means to convince the UK government to accept freedom of movement of people along with the other three freedoms, which the European Single Market seeks to guarantee. Political determination will be of utmost importance and I will definitely not content myself by truckling to those who consider my proposal unfeasible. I am determined to bring this idea as far as I possibly can on the European level. Indeed, history proves me right when we look at the achievements, which European citizens enjoy nowadays. Who thought, for instance, that one day, EU citizenship would give every EU citizen the right to vote for and stand as a candidate in municipal and European Parliament elections in whichever EU country the citizen resides, under the same conditions as nationals. This is reality today and yes, it needed a tremendous effort and, above all, the political determination to get this far. Why not exert ourselves for this cause and make the “associate EU citizenship” happen? 3 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Connexion Q2 2019
    Photo’s Copywrite: © Cour grand-ducale / Jochen Herling the New GRAND DUKE JEAN Q2 - 2019 4€ GRAND DUKE JEAN © Collections de la Cour grand-ducale MERCI PAPA Mon Père Mes chers concitoyens En ce jour de funérailles de notre cher Père, j’aimerais vous dire combien il a compté pour nous tous, ses enfants, belles-filles et gendres, petits-enfants et arrière-petits-enfants. Toute sa vie durant, il est resté très attentif à sa famille, malgré la lourde charge qu’il accomplissait avec sagesse et un grand sens du devoir. Il pouvait aussi compter sur le soutien précieux de son épouse, ma mère, la Grande-Duchesse Joséphine-Charlotte. Tourné vers les autres, il avait cette faculté d’écoute exceptionnelle qui touchait chaque personne qu’il rencontrait. C’était une personne au caractère éminemment positif. Curieux de tout, il participait quelques jours encore avant son hospitalisation au Forum organisé par mon épouse ou visitait une exposition. Il suivait tout ce qui se passait dans le pays. Même l’épineux dossier du “Brexit” n’avait que peu de secrets pour lui. Je suis persuadé que cette disposition d’esprit et sa vivacité ont été les garants de sa longévité. Dans son cercle plus intime, sa joie de vivre rayonnait sur nous tous et son sens de l’humour nous faisait parfois rire aux larmes. Il était d’un soutien constant, en nous encourageant et en nous félicitant dans nos actions, tout en respectant entièrement nos choix et nos décisions. Bien sûr, l’autre ambition de sa vie fut l’amour profond qu’il portait à sa patrie et la très grande affection qu’il vouait à ses compatriotes dans leur unité et leur diversité.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Letter on the Medical Treatment of Prisoners in Bahrain
    H.E. the Head of the European Union Delegation to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Sultanate of Oman Ambassador Michele Cervone d’Urso Brussels, 21 November 2019 Dear Ambassador Cervone d’Urso, We, the undersigned Members of the European Parliament, are writing to express our concerns about the cruel and inhumane treatment of several high-profile prisoners in Bahrain, and to ask that you urge the Bahraini authorities to immediately allow those prisoners access to adequate medical care. Human rights organisations and family members of the prisoners, whose detention is at least questionable in the first place, have reported that prison authorities are arbitrarily denying prisoners urgent medical care, refusing to refer them to specialists, failing to disclose medical examination results, and withholding medication as a form of punishment. Denying a prisoner needed medical care violates the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, known as the Mandela Rules. Jau Prison Medical negligence, delays, and arbitrary exercise of authority in Bahrain’s prison system have been well-documented by the international human rights community. According to Amnesty International, in many cases, this has escalated to the level of intentional ill-treatment and permanent damage to the health of individuals suffering from injuries or grave chronic illnesses. The cases of political leader Hassan Mushaima, 71, and academic and opposition figure Dr. Abduljalil Al-Singace, 57, are especially alarming. Both men have been arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment in relation to their peaceful role in the 2011 pro-democracy movement. Dr. Al-Singace has experienced abuse and torture while in prison, documented by several human rights organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Uef-Spinelli Group
    UEF-SPINELLI GROUP MANIFESTO 9 MAY 2021 At watershed moments in history, communities need to adapt their institutions to avoid sliding into irreversible decline, thus equipping themselves to govern new circumstances. After the end of the Cold War the European Union, with the creation of the monetary Union, took a first crucial step towards adapting its institutions; but it was unable to agree on a true fiscal and social policy for the Euro. Later, the Lisbon Treaty strengthened the legislative role of the European Parliament, but again failed to create a strong economic and political union in order to complete the Euro. Resulting from that, the EU was not equipped to react effectively to the first major challenges and crises of the XXI century: the financial crash of 2008, the migration flows of 2015- 2016, the rise of national populism, and the 2016 Brexit referendum. This failure also resulted in a strengthening of the role of national governments — as shown, for example, by the current excessive concentration of power within the European Council, whose actions are blocked by opposing national vetoes —, and in the EU’s chronic inability to develop a common foreign policy capable of promoting Europe’s common strategic interests. Now, however, the tune has changed. In the face of an unprecedented public health crisis and the corresponding collapse of its economies, Europe has reacted with unity and resolve, indicating the way forward for the future of European integration: it laid the foundations by starting with an unprecedented common vaccination strategy, for a “Europe of Health”, and unveiled a recovery plan which will be financed by shared borrowing and repaid by revenue from new EU taxes levied on the digital and financial giants and on polluting industries.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of the European Commission European Commission Rue De La Loi/Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels
    Ms Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission European Commission Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200 1049 Brussels Mr Charles Michel, President of the European Council European Commission Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 1049 Brussels Brussels, 27 July 2020 Dear President von der Leyen, Dear President Michel, With this letter, we would like to draw your attention to the Polish government’s expressed intent to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention on fighting domestic violence. This latest development shows that we can never take women’s rights for granted. This is disrespectful, a clear violation of women’s rights and unacceptable. The signal the Polish government is sending is a highly troubling one in times that are already challenging for women. Women have been hit disproportionally hard by the Covid-19 crisis and face an increase in cases of domestic violence. The European Union is founded upon shared values that are enshrined in our Treaties, amongst them equality between men and women. We cannot regress on these core values stipulated in Article 2 TEU. We should never accept it when one of our Member States backtracks from equality. That is why we call on you, as the President of the European Commission, guardian of the treaties, and as the President of the European Council, to do everything within your power to discourage the Polish government from taking this misstep. Madam President, in your political guidelines, you made the commitment that the EU’s accession to the Istanbul Convention is a key priority for the Commission and that if the accession remains blocked in the Council, you would consider tabling proposals on minimum standards regarding the definition of certain types of violence, and strengthening the Victims’ Rights Directive.
    [Show full text]
  • Mr Josep Borrell Fontelles HR / VP of the European Commission [email protected] [email protected]
    Mr Josep Borrell Fontelles HR / VP of the European Commission [email protected] [email protected] Brussels, 13 May 2020 Dear High Representative and Vice-President Borrell, Censorship of the joint Op-Ed marking the 45th anniversary of EU–China relations on May 6 in the China Daily With this letter we would like to express our concerns about the way in which the EEAS is engaging with its Chinese counterparts and dealing with diplomatic pressure from Chinese official authorities. During our last exchange of views in the AFET Committee on April 30, you firmly reassured the Members of the Parliament that the EU would never bow to pressure coming from Chinese channels to censor our publications. Regrettably, we must however conclude that one week later the EEAS did exactly do that by watering down a joint Op-Ed marking the 45th anniversary of EU–China relations. After pressure from Chinese authorities, the Op-Ed was published on the 6th of May in the China Daily without the reference to the origins of the coronavirus. You will agree with us, that it is most unfortunate that this happened just few days following the World Press Freedom Day on the 3rd of May. The EEAS press release on May 8 attempts to justify the decision to proceed with the censored publication on the ground of the necessity to reach out to the wider Chinese public by passing key messages on a number of priority areas. We certainly recognise the strategical importance of engaging with China and its people.
    [Show full text]
  • En En Joint Motion for a Resolution
    European Parliament 2014-2019 Plenary sitting B8-0338/2016 } B8-0346/2016 } B8-0347/2016 } B8-0371/2016 } B8-0376/2016 } B8-0377/2016 } B8-0378/2016 } RC1 9.3.2016 JOINT MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION pursuant to Rules 135(5) and 123(4) of the Rules of Procedure replacing the motions by the following groups: Verts/ALE (B8-0338/2016) ECR (B8-0346/2016) EFDD (B8-0347/2016) PPE (B8-0371/2016) ALDE (B8-0376/2016) GUE/NGL (B8-0377/2016) S&D (B8-0378/2016) on Egypt, notably the case of Giulio Regeni (2016/2608(RSP)) Cristian Dan Preda, Elmar Brok, Tomáš Zdechovský, Antonio Tajani, Tunne Kelam, Davor Ivo Stier, Andrej Plenković, Roberta Metsola, Eva Paunova, Bogdan Brunon Wenta, Andrey Kovatchev, Lorenzo Cesa, Claude Rolin, Patricija Šulin, Milan Zver, Mariya Gabriel, Giovanni La Via, Dubravka Šuica, Ivan Štefanec, Jaromír Štětina, Pavel Svoboda, Ramona Nicole Mănescu, Thomas Mann, Elisabetta Gardini, Lara Comi, Stanislav Polčák, Ivana Maletić, Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz, Michaela Šojdrová, Massimiliano Salini, Romana Tomc, Sven Schulze, RC\1089045EN.doc PE579.771v01-00 } PE579.779v01-00 } PE579.780v01-00 } PE579.784v01-00 } PE579.789v01-00 } PE579.790v01-00 } PE579.791v01-00 } RC1 EN United in diversityEN David McAllister, Csaba Sógor, Luděk Niedermayer, Anna Záborská, Joachim Zeller, Adam Szejnfeld, Jiří Pospíšil, Marijana Petir, Barbara Matera, Salvatore Cicu, Therese Comodini Cachia, László Tőkés, József Nagy, Krzysztof Hetman on behalf of the PPE Group Pier Antonio Panzeri, Victor Boştinaru, Richard Howitt, Maria Arena, Hugues Bayet, Brando
    [Show full text]
  • Declaration Unfinished Justice: Restitution and Remembrance (Following European Conference on Restorative Justice Brussels, 26Th April 2017)
    26th June 2017 Declaration Unfinished Justice: Restitution and Remembrance (Following European Conference on Restorative Justice Brussels, 26th April 2017) Preamble It is now more than seventy years after the Holocaust (Shoah) in which six million Jews – seventy-five percent of the Jewish population of Europe – were murdered. Only a small fraction of private and communal immovable and movable property illegitimately seized from Jewish victims has been returned or compensated to rightful owners, heirs, or to the Jewish people at large. Many Holocaust survivors live in poverty and without adequate social care, and their social welfare needs are expanding rapidly as they age. In light of the above We, members of the European Parliament, affirm the moral responsibility of European Union member states to advance Holocaust-era property restitution. We also declare our enduring commitment to the provision of adequate and immediate social welfare support for Holocaust survivors, the demarcation, protection and preservation of Jewish cemeteries, mass graves and other burial sites, the preservation of Jewish heritage sites, and the promotion of Holocaust education, research and remembrance. We recognize the commitment of the European Parliament to restitution of Holocaust-era assets as called for in previous resolutions of the Parliament and reaffirm past international principles and declarations that reflect a consensus for the restitution of Holocaust-era assets. Considering the urgency of the matter We call upon Member States of the European Union to reaffirm their commitment to resolve remaining issues on restitution and compensation of looted property, in accordance with the principles of the Terezin Declaration on Holocaust Era Assets and Related Issues, and to address the growing social welfare needs of Holocaust survivors.
    [Show full text]
  • European Elections Why Vote? English
    Europea2n E0lecti1ons9 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT THE EUROPEAN ELECTIONS WHY VOTE? ENGLISH Luxembourg Results of the 26 May 2019 European elections Show 10 entries Search: Trend European Number of Percentage of Number of Political Parties compared affiliation votes votes seats with 2014 Democratic Party Renew Europe 268 910 21.44% 2 ↑ Social Christian People’s EPP 264 665 21.1% 2 ↓ Party The Greens Greens/EFA 237 215 18.91% 1 ↑ Luxembourg Socialist S&D 152 900 12.19% 1 ↑ Workers’ Party Showing 1 to 4 of 4 entries Previous Next List of MEPs Christophe Hansen Christian Social People's Party EPP Isabel Wiesler-Santos Lima Christian Social People's Party EPP Nicolas Schmit Luxembourg Socialist Workers' Party S&D Charles Goerens Democratic Party Renew Europe Monica Semedo Democratic Party Renew Europe Tilly Metz Green Party Verts/ALE Lists for the elections on 26 May 2019 European Leading Name of party Translation Website Programme affiliation candidate Chrëschtlech Sozial Social Christian EPP Christophe Hansen csv.lu Programme Vollekspartei (CSV) People’s Party Lëtzebuerger Sozialistesch Luxembourg Socialist S&D Nicolas Schmit and lsap.lu Programme Aarbechterpartei (LSAP) Workers’ Party Lisa Kersch Alternativ Demokratesch Alternative ECR Nicky Stoffel adr.lu Programme Reformpartei (ADR) Democratic Reform Party Demokratesch Partei (DP) Democratic Party ALDE Charles Goerens dp.lu Programme Déi Lénk The Left GUE/NGL David Wagner dei-lenk.lu Programme Déi Gréng The Greens Greens/EFA Tilly Metz greng.lu Programme Piratepartei Lëtzebuerg (PL) Luxembourg Pirate Greens/EFA Sven Clement piraten.lu Programme Party Déi Konservativ The Conservatives / Joe Thein déikonservativ.lu Programme Volt Volt / Fiona Godfrey volteuropa.org Programme Kommunistesch Partei Communist Party of / Esther Reuland kpl.org Lëtzebuerg – KPL Luxembourg Electoral Procedures > Election Dates : 26 May 2019 > Number of MEPs : 6 > At what age can one vote? 18 years > At what age can one be elected? 18 years > Who can vote? European citizens living in Luxembourg, for at least two years.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 03 Sept. 2014 How the Sakharov Prize 2014 Is Awarded Background Briefing in the Next 10 Days, the Nominations of the Sakharov
    1 03 Sept. 2014 How the Sakharov Prize 2014 is awarded Background briefing In the next 10 days, the nominations of the Sakharov Prize for Human Rights will be decided by the European Parliament. The prize is awarded to “honour exceptional individuals who combat intolerance, fanaticism and oppression.”1 Previous winners include Nelson Mandela, Reporters without Borders and Anatoli Marchenko. If you believe that Azerbaijani human rights defenders – who are now in jail following years of work on behalf of the rights of others, and most recently on a list of political prisoners in Azerbaijan (on which they are now included) – then let the MEPs who vote on this know. Nominations for the Sakharov Prize can be made by: Political groups in the European Parliament. Or At least 40 MEPs. The deadline for nominations is Thursday 18 September at 12:00 in Strasbourg. NOTE: In order to decide on a nominee from their group some political groups have internal deadlines in the course of the next week. The next days are crucial. We focus here on four important political groups which might to support this nomination: The EPP Social Democrats Liberals Greens 1Source: The European Union website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/00f3dd2249/Sakharov-Prize-for-Freedom-of-Thought.html 2 Once the nominations are been made, the Foreign Affairs and Development committees vote on a shortlist of three finalists. This happens on either Monday 6th or Tuesday 7th October 2014. The members list for the foreign affairs committee can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/afet/members.html, while the development committee is here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/deve/members.html#menuzone.
    [Show full text]
  • En En Motion for a Resolution
    European Parliament 2014-2019 Plenary sitting B8-0319/2018 2.7.2018 MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION to wind up the debate on the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy pursuant to Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure on the migration crisis and humanitarian situation in Venezuela and at its borders (2018/2770(RSP)) Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea, Petras Auštrevičius, Izaskun Bilbao Barandica, Dita Charanzová, Gérard Deprez, Martina Dlabajová, María Teresa Giménez Barbat, Charles Goerens, Marian Harkin, Nadja Hirsch, Ivan Jakovčić, Patricia Lalonde, Louis Michel, Ulrike Müller, Javier Nart, Urmas Paet, Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz, Jozo Radoš, Frédérique Ries, Robert Rochefort, Marietje Schaake, Jasenko Selimovic, Pavel Telička, Ramon Tremosa i Balcells, Ivo Vajgl, Johannes Cornelis van Baalen, Hilde Vautmans, Cecilia Wikström on behalf of the ALDE Group RE\1158027EN.docx PE621.747v01-00 EN United in diversity EN B8-0319 European Parliament resolution on the migration crisis and humanitarian situation in Venezuela and at its borders (2018/2770(RSP)) The European Parliament, – having regard to its previous resolutions on Venezuela, in particular those of 27 February 2014 on the situation in Venezuela1, of 18 December 2014 on the persecution of the democratic opposition in Venezuela2, of 12 March 2015 on the situation in Venezuela3, of 8 June 2016 on the situation in Venezuela4, of 27 April 2017 on the situation in Venezuela5, of 8 February 2018 on the situation in
    [Show full text]
  • Political Group Coordinators in Parliamentary Committees
    Political Group Coordinators in Parliamentary Committees Updated February 2017 Each political group in the European Parliament designates one of its MEPs to act as 'coordinator' on any particular Committee. The group coordinator is the main spokesperson for their group in the Committee, and also negotiates for the allocation of Rapporteurs. They assist Rapporteurs and Shadows in the drafting of voting recommendations and decide which substitutes can vote in the absence of full members. They also ensure that MEPs vote at critical times. EPP S&D ECR ALDE GUE/NGL Greens/EFA EFDD María Teresa Morten Pascal AFCO György Schöpflin Mercedes Bresso Pagazaurtundúa Barbara Spinelli Fabio DeMasi Messerschmidt Durand Ruiz Barbara Johannes Cornelis AFET Cristian Dan Preda Knut Fleckenstein Charles Tannock Sabine Lösing Lochbihler & Fabio DeMasi van Baalen Tamás Meszerics Maria Lidia Senra Martin AGRI Albert Dess Eric Andrieu James Nicholson Ulrike Müller Stuart Agnew Rodriguez Häusling Jose Manuel Eider Gardiazabal Indrek BUDG Bernd Kölmel Gerard Deprez Liadh Ní Riada Jonathan Arnott Fernandes Rubial Tarand CONT Petri Sarvamaa Inés Ayala Sender Ryszard Czarnecki Nedzhmi Ali Cornelis de Jong Bart Staes Marco Valli Helga CULT Sabine Verheyen Silvia Costa Andrew Lewer Yana Toom Curzio Maltese Isabella Adinolfi Trüpel Maria DEVE Bogdan Wenta Norbert Neuser Eleni Theocharous Charles Goerens Lola Sánchez Ignazio Corrao Heubuch © DeHavilland EU Ltd 2017. All rights reserved. Sven ECON Burkhard Balz Pervenche Berès Kay Swinburne Sylvie Goulard Marisa Matias
    [Show full text]
  • Do Development Minister Characteristics Affect Aid Giving?
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Fuchs, Andreas; Richert, Katharina Working Paper Do Development Minister Characteristics Affect Aid Giving? Discussion Paper Series, No. 604 Provided in Cooperation with: Alfred Weber Institute, Department of Economics, University of Heidelberg Suggested Citation: Fuchs, Andreas; Richert, Katharina (2015) : Do Development Minister Characteristics Affect Aid Giving?, Discussion Paper Series, No. 604, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics, Heidelberg, http://dx.doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00019769 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/127421 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von
    [Show full text]